GovernmentExecutive.com

The Homeland Security Department's plan to implement new border crossing rules at the end of January has been met with widespread criticism on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers fearing the move will create unacceptable delays and problems for trade and tourism. Beginning Jan. 31, travelers will be required to produce documents, such as a birth certificate, passport and driver's license, proving their citizenship when coming into the country from Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean.

The change, which is part of the so-called Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, primarily affects U.S. and Canadian citizens, who had been permitted entry by making an oral declaration of citizenship. But northern border lawmakers immediately slammed the plan.

"The looming requirement for birth certificates at the northern border is poorly planned, and with concerns about a recession on the way, the timing for clamping down on billions of dollars in trade and travel could not be worse," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "I can think of nothing that would push the northern border states over the edge more surely than this heavy-handed, ill-timed and misguided government mandate."

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she has urged Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff to reconsider the move. She noted that Congress recently enacted legislation prohibiting the department from fully implementing the travel initiative until June 2009. Chertoff argued in a letter Thursday to senators that he has the authority to end the practice of accepting oral declarations at the border, regardless of the congressional restrictions.

"While I understand that the secretary views this initiative as separate from the requirement for a passport that the Congress has prohibited him from implementing until June 2009, the clear message we were sending to the department was to be more attuned to the legitimate travel and commerce of border community residents," Collins said in a statement. "I reminded Secretary Chertoff that DHS caused unacceptable delays at the border crossings last year when it implemented license checks without having the necessary staff in place. For the department to impose an additional requirement of a birth certificate, which many residents do not have at hand, and to no longer accept common documents such as baptismal certificates and student ID cards as a supplement to license checks could well cause considerable difficulties and back-ups at the border."

Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said Chertoff's decision to implement new documentation requirements "clearly violates explicit direction from Congress." Allen, who is running to unseat Collins in this year's election, added: "I will join effort with others in Congress to ensure that DHS's actions do not harm our border economy or excessively burden Maine citizens."

But it was not clear what, if anything, lawmakers could do to prevent the new rules from going into effect. An aide to Leahy noted that little time exists between when the Senate comes back into session next week and the end of the month.

"We are looking at all possible avenues to address this issue," the aide said.

COMMENTS

• Most comments are probably not from border-staters. This will be a new tax for farmers (and others) that routinely cross the border. Want to buy some hay; you, your family, and hired hands, will all need to apply , and pay for a passport to go a mile or two up the road. Live in New England and need to go home to Michigan for a wedding or funeral (uncommon events), pay a tax (and plan weel in advance). Live in Central US, no problem - tax those other guys. We use drivers licenses for general ID, alchohol, tobacco, and most financial transactions. WHy is a goverment-furnished ID now insufficient (noting that there are states that abdicate their responsiblity-- but lets deal with them vs. punishing all)? I have passed borders in Europe and FSU without the scrutiny we induldge in here, and do not see a marked difference. Yes, I do have both official and personal passports, but do not see what this will accomplish. I am a conservative, generally Republican, but rankle at this. Jim Posted February 5, 2008 8:43 PM
• All this hassle about passports is such a bother. Who wouldn't want to just present a drivers license. It should be relatively easy to present some fraudulent or fraudulently obtained documents to a DMV clerk to get one and it probably wouldn't be a felony, it's not like a consulate official or ICE agent is going to be available 24 X 7 in suspect cases. Especially when the claim they can't keep up with the passport backlogs or pick up all the aliens picked up by police respectively. Besides, even if I were to use my own drivers’ license I could certainly conceal all that suspect travel abroad I made via Canada that would otherwise be noted in my passports. I can't imagine why a politician from NY wouldn't trade their constituents security for those tax dollars on goods sold here but not made here. Especially when all those trade groups that claim they can't afford to pay Legal Permanent Residents and USC's a living wage wan't Canadians to prop up a system thats broken. WEB Posted February 2, 2008 9:21 PM
• I guess I don't understand the big deal. My wife and I have had a passport for over 12 years now. Both of us recently got it renewed. We just use that. Why is it such a big deal. We have to control our borders somehow and just asking the question does not seem to be the best policy without some paper to back it up. On the Canadian Border Posted January 25, 2008 4:57 PM